Welcome to The Rant! Your very own electronic cesspool of naughty, left wing propaganda. MADE IN AMERICA!!!

Monday, February 22, 2016

Jeb Is Left Behind

Can you imagine what Jeb Bush must be thinking this morning? He was the “golden boy” of that disgusting family. He was the one everyone expected to be sitting on the mountaintop one day. And what happened? It was all dashed by his half-witted older brother and the complete and utter incompetence of the American electorate. I would imagine that this is not a particularly fun time for Jeb. His life as a politician is over. The poor schlep must be pounding his head against a marble wall as I write these words. Isn’t life strange?

The Bush dynasty should have been strangled in its cradle decades ago. Better late than never, as I always say. But there is an ominously dark cloud behind this sweet, silver lining. It is hard to feel any sense of genuine relief when one takes into consideration all of the damage they were able to inflict upon this doomed nation, going all the way back to Grandpa Prescott Bush, who had a cozy business relationship with Nazi Germany. There's also convincing proof that the hideous old bastard was in on a plot to overthrow (violently if necessary) Franklin D. Roosevelt. That plot was foiled by retired general Smedley Butler. Gotta love them Bushes!

The last time one Democratic administration was succeeded by another Democratic administration was on March 4, 1857, when Franklin Pierce tossed the keys to the executive mansion to miserable old James Buchanan. It hasn’t happened since. It will happen again on January 20, 2017. The Bushes have rendered the Republican Party unelectable on a national level. Perhaps they did do some good after all.

Life is beautiful.

How did the GOP get to this place? This was, after all, the one-time ideological home of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. What the hell happened?

There had always been an extremist element lurking withing the bowels of that goofy party - going all the way back to the administration of Ulysses S. Grant in the 1870's (although Grant, himself, was an honest and decent man). But it wasn't until the 1964 candidacy of Barry Goldwater when the Republicans began courting the John Birchers that the party began to exhibit some serious symptoms of mental illness.

During the campaign of 1968, in response to the urban riots that followed the murder of Martin Luther King, the Nixon Mob began their so-called "Southern Strategy". That was a signal to the so-called "Dixiecrats" of the Deep South that a Nixon administration would put a decided end to the "nigger problem" (not their exact words, but the inference was there). Within less-than-a-decade, the racist Dixiecrats (who for over a century had been unable to vote for the party of "that bearded bastard that freed our slaves" had fled - like frightened little mice - into the loving arms of the Republicans. That was the moment they made their deal with Lucifer. That was the moment they stepped into the abyss. They have not a bit of credibility left. Where have you gone, Teddy Roosevelt?

Where their hearts were really at was confirmed in 1980 when Ronald Reagan, probably the worst racist to occupy the White House since Woodrow Wilson, launched his campaign from Philadelphia, Mississippi, a worthless little stain on the map whose only claim to fame were the murders of three civil rights workers there in the summer of 1964. The gipper was sending the subtle message that Jim Crow would be given the red carpet treatment in his administration.

For over fifty years - since the extremist wing of that party seized control of it at the 1964 convention, the Republicans have been wallowing in the depths of the ideological sewer. The candidates for the 2016 nomination - comically incompetent all - are merely a case of the chickens coming home to roost.

As a serious force in American politics, the Bushes are kaput. Even his older brother could not help him in South Carolina. While that state may not be one of the centers for intellectual enlightenment (I'm being gentle) at least the people there were smart enough to understand that the Brothers Bush are two sides of the same counterfeit coin. Then again, they did give the prize to Donald Trump.

Never mind.

Tom Degan

Goshen, NY

SUGGESTED READING:

Chaplin: His Life and Art

by David Robinson

I read this one when it first came out in 1985, and read it again this week. This is probably the best biography of Charlie Chaplin ever written - and I've read them all. Chaplin was one of the few, true geniuses of the twentieth century, and a truly brave and great man.By the way, Blackhawk Films has just put out a restored version of the Chaplin Mutuals (1916-1917). The quality of the restorations is stunning. Have a look at this minute-long preview. It's astonishing when one considers the fact that these films were created a century ago:

An old pal has passed into eternity. Brian Mohin was diagnosed with cancer only six days ago. He died early this morning.

Brian was one of the smartest, funniest and kindest gents who ever walked this earth. He was also the first male I ever knew personally to grow his hair OUTRAGEOUSLY LONG! When I met him in the late sixties, he was still in his teens (I was a few years younger). I'm not exaggerating when I tell you that I loved the guy from the get-go. I never heard him utter a cross word about another human being during all the decades I knew him.

No one laughed easier or was gentler than Brian. He was really like an adopted cousin to me - an honorary member of the Cullen Family. If George Martin was "the fifth Beatle", Brian was "the ninth Cullen". It is definitely going to take some time getting used to a world without Brian Mohin. For each one who goes before me, I fear it less and less. Gentle thoughts to his wife, Alyssa, and his kids, Liz and Bennett.

118 Comments:

There was actually a time when I said "Jeb should have been President instead of Dubya. He's the smart one".

Now I admit I was in error on that point. If he had been smart he'd never have run after the unmitigated DISASYER of his brothers tenure. he'd ahve gone into one of dozens of family businesses and faded quietly out of the public spotlight.

Even Matriarch Barbara said "we have had enough Bush's in the White house". Two too may actually, but what can ya do about the past?

I'll tell you. DON'T REPEAT IT.

Now we are stuck with a choice between Trump and Cruze on the right , and given NO other choices (hypothetically, because we have TWO better choices in Bernie and Hillary)Id pick Trump, because Cruz is Trump WITH RELIGION. Evangelicals would listen to him. Most of them HATE Trump.

Here's hoping Americans wake up and come out in force against the anti American right.

It may be our last chance to save the country from the Kochs and their dream of turning America into a corporate owned "John Birch society"

Dear Mr. Degan: I wouldn't put the issue of a Democratic administration in 2017 to bed just yet. 2016 will be a change election and the Clinton machine, including the NY Times is in the tank for Hillary because "she is electable and Bernie's dreams are just that." In fact, Hillary's campaign is as stale and phony as a two month old slice of Wonder Bread. If you don't think Trump has been tilting toward skewering Hillary, think about why he really lit into Bush on Iraq. After all, it was Hillary who supported the biggest mistake in American History, and Trump is salivating for the chance to rub her nose in it. Hell, I'd do the same if I had the chance. This will replay itself on every issue: TPP, Keystone, Wall Street health care etc.etc. If she runs against Trump, he'll win, and then you'll be left looking back wistfully to the days of a Bush administration.

I am very glad that Jeb Bush is out of the race. That said, if it were left between him or Trump for the nomination, I would still rather have the execrable Jeb.

The other non-alternatives on the left are a lying criminal the likes of which would make Nixon blush and a 60's socialist that has never held a significant job before becoming another politician with all of the same failed answers of FDR and LBJ. After the trillions we have spent on the New Deal and the "War on Poverty", we have even more poor people today under the asinine policies of Obama. Doubling down of those policies will only hasten our ruin.

Too many ignorant people are reacting in anger to the Hillary/Bernie free give-away policies by supporting the idiot Trump. What they fail to realize is that Trump is just another narcissist that cares about only those things that are good for him. He has no other core values otherwise. In other words, he is simply a paler shade of Obama.

If Trump or one of the Democrats win the presidency, America as it was founded as a representative republic based on constitutional rule of law will cease to be. We will become just another Euro-trash quasi-socialist nation engulfed in debt which is destined to fail.

I grieve for all of those, including friends and family, that have shed their blood protecting our greatest of nations over the decades from existential threats only to have our country undone by the ignorance of our own citizens. May God save us, as I suspect only He can at this point.

Chuck Morre, With George_1 your point may be correct. His dad Prescott however is another story. He was an executive (along with Averell Harriman) with 'Harriman Brown Brothers' who had hundreds of millions of assets frozen under the 'trading with the enemies act'. It appears they were dealing with the Allies, the Soviets and the Nazis all at the same time before - and during the war and also industrialists on all sides.

Just like modern corporations tagged as to big to fail get bailouts rather than prosecution, their crimes were so heinous that Prescott became a Senator and Averell became Governor of NY. These are the kind of guys that create WWIIs & coldwars - you know, the people that Eisenhower warned us about.

Another thing I often wonder about is how many corporate practices put people at risk. Take Exxon's scientists determining that climate change will result from fossil fuel combustion decades ago - and then funding a mis-information campaign to deny that determination. Monsanto has had a long history of producing a variety of dangerous products which have caused untold misery through death and birth defects. Of course there are a tremendous number of other examples to choose from - but those two are currently my favorites.

Anyway, if an individual were to behave that way, he would be executed as a psychopathic killer. But if these things are done for profit, our society protects and rewards it. That is pretty disgusting too!

"..a lying criminal the likes of which would make Nixon blush and a 60's socialist that has never held a significant job before becoming another politician with all of the same failed answers of FDR and LBJ."

First off, ALL the charges aginst Hillary are proven BULLSHIT. And Sanders is a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST you moron! You know the system you have been ilving under since you were born? (and the foundes intended)

As for LBJ and FDR, ther sociual profgramse were the most SUCCESSFUL in US history, unless you are AGAINST helping the poor and middle class.

OOPs, you are a Glenn Beck Republican, so yeah, you are against those thnigs.

I read the autobiography of Charlie Chaplin that the movie "Chaplin" (starring Robert Downey jr. was based upon and it's a MUST see) and in it he PERFECTLY describes what we now call "Trickle down economics" as being the cause of the Great Depression. Interesting that Reagan would choose an economic policy that had already PROVEN to be a dismal falure. Even Bush Sr. called it "Voodoo economics".

After the trillions we have spent on the New Deal and the "War on Poverty", we have even more poor people today under the asinine policies of Obama.

Are you trying to suggest the New Deal caused the Great Depression? Are you trying to suggest the war on poverty didn't help those in need? Are you trying to suggest public safety net programs caused the Great Bush Financial Collapse and Great Recession?

It sure looks like the old blame card is being played again.

Look, the New Deal and War on Poverty addressed the FAILURES of capitalism. The so-called "job creators" and money men failed to create enough jobs and crashed our economy... twice.

Government is the only recourse to failed deregulated capitalism. Cons cannot grasp this fact.

Poverty and the decline of the middle class today is a result of US corporatism's corruption and seizure of government, war on unions and labor rights, and then offshoring jobs from the nation that nourished their growth.

Profit is the god of Wall Street and both parties serve their masters. Why this is not more understood is proof corporate media does its propaganda well.

If Trump or one of the Democrats win the presidency, America as it was founded as a representative republic based on constitutional rule of law will cease to be.

Since when has the Republican Party represented anyone but the rich? Do you honestly believe the GOP gives a crap about minorities and the working class? Or the Constitution?

Nobody is more opposed to Constitutional regulation of commerce, taxation, and providing for the general welfare. The GOP is bent on destruction of our Constitutional representative Republic.

The entire Republican Party and most of the Democratic Party represent the interests of Wall Street and corporations over those of most Americans. This is why Bernie appeals to half of the Democratic primary voters. He's the only candidate who represents most people over the elites.

If one is unwilling to consider this fact, no further discussion is possible.

Why are cons afraid of this question?

WHAT HAVE CONSERVATIVES DONE TO HELP THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS THE LAST 40 YEARS?

Trump for President! His motto: "You can’t make an omelette without ruthlessly crushing dozens of eggs beneath your steel boot and then publicly disemboweling the chickens that laid them as a warning to others."

Also, why did George H.W. Bush serve in the Philippines during WWII? So he wouldn't be fighting any of his dad's Nazi German buddies.

Mr. Mozart, I really don’t want to get down in the mud with you sir. The fact of the matter is that numerous reputable and apolitical sources from the FBI and others stated that Hillary transmitted and received classified information on her own private server. Some of this information was beyond top secret. The dissemination of that information by our enemies gaining access to it compromises national security and puts intelligence assets in grave danger. She disregarded these details for her own convenience and to be able to self-edit which information became public.

General Petraeus was convicted for sharing his day planner notes with his biographer. If Hillary was not who she is and was not running for president, the FBI would have already indicted her. Even if they were to do so now, the Obama Justice Department will not prosecute her because she knows all about Obama’s skeletons in the closet too. The fact that you think Hillary is not a lying crook who put our national security at risk speaks more strongly towards your seeming lack of abilities to discern character than to mine, sir.

Further, if you think “Democratic socialism” is what the founders intended, than you really have been subjected to revisionist history, Mr. Mozart. Public services such as police, military, and infrastructure like public roads hardly meet the true definition of socialism… Democratic or otherwise.

Further, if you think the New Deal and the War on Poverty were the “most successful” programs in US history, I am really curious how you define success, sir. The fact of the matter is that the New Deal extended the Great Depression for years and it took WWII for us to finally get all people back to work. As for the “success” of LBJ’s war on poverty, the U.S. Census Bureau claimed that in 2013 we had 14.5% of Americans that were considered “poor”. That is almost the same rate as in 1967… three years after the beginning of LBJ’s “war”. Obama’s policies have only exacerbated this issue and we now have record numbers of people living in poverty and on some sort of food stamps or government assistance.

Now I understand that most rank and file Democrats have nothing but the very best of intentions in wanting to help the poor. I truly and sincerely applaud those intentions. That said, hand outs are obviously not working and are simply creating only more cases of people living below the poverty line. Even Bill Clinton FINALLY recognized the need for welfare reform during his administration and passed laws that got millions of people off of the public dole and back to work where they could find a sense of self-reliance and dignity once again. For most progressives it seems success is based on how many people are on public assistance. For most conservatives, success is qualified by how many people no longer need to rely on public assistance. That should always be our goal; to help people become self sufficient. Yes, we absolutely have a duty to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves. We should not, however, be helping those with tax payer dollars that do not WANT to work. It’s that whole “teach a man to fish, rather than give him a fish” idea.

Next, your ignorance is showing, Mr. Mozart. I don’t mean that to be a pejorative, but rather the descriptive condition in which you seem to currently be, sir. Neither I, nor Glen Beck, are Republicans. We are both constitutional conservatives however. I suspect that your knowledge of Glen Beck comes from whatever left wing commentators have to distortedly report about him. I would be willing to bet that you have never listened to him in your whole life, have you?

Mr. Dubya, I am not saying that the New Deal caused the Great Depression. That would be chronologically impossible. I am saying that FDR’s largesse, while indeed helping some individuals, did extend the effects of the Great Depression for many years for millions of other Americans. Further, what you classify as the evils of capitalism are NOT a true part of it, but rather are corruptions of it as practiced by politicians of all stripes with their cronyism and favors. If we followed the rule of law and prosecuted those responsible for the corruption on Wall Street and in office, we would likely see far less of it. Instead we make new laws for corporations and banks that are “too big to fail”.

Further, Dave, I agree that the Republicans today are little better than the evil and vile Democrat leaders. That said, the question that you and Mozart keep asking shows the progressive mind set, and thus I disregard the premise to begin with.

“What have conservatives done to help the poor and middle class the last 40 years?”

Your and Mr. Mozart’s question is indicative of the problem. You look to the government to solve your problems. Conservatives look to the government to do those duties SPECIFICALLY enumerated in the constitution and to otherwise leave us be to continue our own pursuit of happiness. That said, the cutting of taxes for the middle class and poor under Reagan and George W. Bush are concrete examples of what the GOP has done to help. (Even JFK understood this with his fiscal policies of “a rising tide lifting all boats”.) The per child tax credit increases under Bush definitely helped me and other middle class people. The reduction of marginal tax rates under Reagan caused the economy in the 1980’s to boom and brought us out of the malaise of the Carter years. Those are things the government is supposed to do: fund only those things they are constitutionally required to do and to run government as efficiently as possible. They should not be looking for ways to expand the tentacles of government into education, health care and whatever trend happens to become in vogue.

T. Paine is so full of shit.The depression was over before the war started; and the FDR programs are what helped pull us out of the depression. The idea of food stamps, social security, etc., (safety net programs) started way before the great depression. The industrial revolution of the 1800's bought the financial inequities to the front of the public thinking. These programs have helped millions of people. The starvation rate and early death rate among the public basically stopped because of these programs. Reagan's tax cuts did not bring more income to the government, or he would not have left office with a 2-1/2 trillion dollar debt. Those same proven failed financial policies followed by Bush I and II proves the failure of those policies by leaving a 5-1/2 trillion dollar debt by Bush I and a 13 trillion dollar debt left by Bush II. Facts are a stubborn thing Mr. Paine, to bad you choose to twist those facts. A typical play by a partisan hack.

“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”JFK - Profiles in Courage

JFK believed in communal taxation to make those boats rise. He knew better than to count on the generosity of greedy Republican capitalists.

TP, While your heart may be in the right place, your head is of full of GOP talking points.

Some of this information was beyond top secret.

“Top secret”? No, not at the time. It was reclassified later. Not excusing her, just presenting facts.

For most progressives it seems success is based on how many people are on public assistance.

Not in the least way true. I’ve noted this false belief before. Yet you repeat it. Why?

For most conservatives, success is qualified by how many people no longer need to rely on public assistance.

Then if there are more unemployed than jobs for them, the failure is not theirs, but by the “job creators” and capitalism.

hand outs are obviously not working

A false, blanket, sweeping claim there. Obviously food on the table works for those in need. Obviously capitalism is not working, or there would be enough jobs.

That should always be our goal; to help people become self sufficient. Yes, we absolutely have a duty to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves. We should not, however, be helping those with tax payer dollars that do not WANT to work. It’s that whole “teach a man to fish, rather than give him a fish” idea.

We agree here. I wish your belief system accepted the fact liberals feel this way too. Instead you falsely twist our words into “success is based on how many people are on public assistance”.

Glenn Beck? Yeah, I heard him say Obama is a racist who hates white people. Didn’t he once say those who listen to him are fools?

FDR’s largesse, while indeed helping some individuals, did extend the effects of the Great Depression for many years

This unsupported assertion is at best merely conjecture, and at worst, a Right Wing propaganda talking point.

Further, what you classify as the evils of capitalism

I said “failures” not evils. That is your word.

If we followed the rule of law …

Those who write the laws are now above the law. Torture used to be illegal, remember? The powerful are always less accountable than the rest of us.

“What have conservatives done to help the poor and middle class the last 40 years?”

I disregard the premise to begin with.

Then you disregard, of have your own narrow conception of, Constitutional representation and Constitutional general welfare. Like all cons and Republicans.

If we ask, what have conservatives done to help the wealthy the last 40 years, we have an abundance of evidence. Feel free to disregard that premise too.

You look to the government to solve your problems.

There you go again. NO WE DON”T!!!

More false far Right propaganda points. Having the government owned and in service to the few at the top is our problem. Only voters can change that, and it may be too late.

Why do cons invent talking points and assign their inventions to others?

IF you can cite ANY liberal saying “we look to the government to solve our problems” then you have a point.

We sure as hell can’t look to conservatives to solve any problems. They’ve done nothing for the poor and middle class, serve the elites, and have obstructed every expansion of voting rights and equality ever made. Just the facts.

they should not be looking for ways to expand the tentacles of government into education, health care…The reduction of marginal tax rates under Reagan caused the economy in the 1980’s to boom

These are just opinions and GOP talking points again.

Did the economy really “boom”, and who benefitted? Reagan changed the US from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. “Trickle down” actually trickled up. The wealthiest one-fifth of American households saw their incomes increase by 14%. Meanwhile, the poorest one-fifth endured an income decline of 24%, while the incomes of the middle three-fifths of American families stayed more or less flat.

Tell us how much those Bush tax cuts helped the middle class as their jobs got off-shored? Did Bush leave a larger or smaller middle class? Were there more or less poor people after Bush left office? Did the Bush tax cuts lead to prosperity and “all boats rising”?

Sadly, no. But the Right pushes the same ideology of failure. Corpo-dems follow blindly.

"It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” Mr. Biden, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued on June 24, 1992.

Biden not surprisingly, now claims his remarks were "misinterpreted". Really?

More from the NYT's article.

“The presidential election year was 1992,” Mr. Grassley (current chairman of the Judiciary Committee) said. “We had no Supreme Court vacancy. No justice had passed away unexpectedly. No justice had announced his or her intention to retire. Rather it was the fear of an unexpected resignation that drove this former chairman.” Imagine that, Joe was trying a preemptive strike.

“These are the Biden rules,” Mr. Grassley said. “The Biden Rules recognize that under these circumstances, quote, ‘The president should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.’ ”

Moments earlier, Mr. Reid had accused Republicans of distorting the truth by suggesting that it was improper for a president to nominate a Supreme Court justice in his final year in office.

“Senate Republicans would have the American people believe that it is a long-held practice to deny the president the right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy — this is simply not true,” Mr. Reid said. “It grieves me to say it, but when Republicans repeat this statement they’re clearly spreading a falsehood.”

Now, it seems to me that what applies to the goose should apply to the gander. If it was good enough for Joe, then its good enough for Mitch now. Joe said “If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support".

Ok Mr President, if you moderate your selections you MAY enjoy the GOP Senator's support.

"It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” Mr. Biden LESS than five months before the election.

"My view", "if" and "should" on a hypothetical situation.

GOP: "No hearing! No vote!" in reality, EIGHT and half months from the election

Face it Cluckie, you ahve no argument here. The GOP are shitting all over the constitutin (again) because they KNOW that if a Liberal (or even moderate" judge replaces Hitler...oops Scalia...(sorry) their entire plan for world dominatin crumbles. No more Citizens United, no more voter supression. THAT Means the PEOPLE get their voice back and...

NO MORE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

BTW, WHAT HAVE CONSERVATIVES DONE FOR THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS THE LAST 40 YEARS?

Can't say "tax cuts", cause that only benefitted the top 2% and actually HURT the rest of us.

"Biden was not advocating a blockade of any nomination by then-president George Bush. He was insisting that Bush compromise ideologically. “I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,” Biden said. “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

It is certainly true that Biden, like Schumer, was demanding broader latitude for the Senate. Both these remarks are within the historic tradition of senators tussling over how much say their chamber should have in the ideology of a new justice. But neither of them advocated flat-out blocking the president from any nomination, however moderate or well-qualified."

- Jon Chait

There's no comparison whatsoever between what you call "Biden rules" and Mitch McTurtle's nonsense.

I notice that not only has CLUCKIE not answered my fiorst question, but he's got nothing to say about "Turtle boy" McConnell" shitting on the constitution over Scalia. the POTUS is REQURED BY THE CONSTITUTION to name a new judge (and it says nothing about that powerbeing suspended in election years) and congress is REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION to meet and vet the nominee, and hold a VOTE.

The People HAVE spoken, in 2012 when Obama was re elected by more than 5 million votes, a LANDSLIDE in today's political climate.

I realize you teabillies think Obama is only 3/5 of a person, but the CONSTITUTION gives the LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT 5/5 of the powers of the office for HIS ENTIRE TERM!

Now Cluckie will whine and cry about "yelling" in an effort to delfect away from a TRUTH he cannot rationally deny.

For the record, President Obama has a right and a duty to appoint a nominee to the SCOTUS right now. The Senate has a right and duty under the Constitution to advise and consent to that nominee. If the nominee has a constitutional mind set, then he/she should be confirmed. If not, that person should be rejected by the Senate. Simply stating that they will block the nominee, regardless of Biden's or anyone else's unconstitutional reasoning simply is not in line with the constitution.

That said, I find it amazing that you would be incensed and characterize the GOP as "f'ing hypocrites and traitors", Dave, but you seem to have less concern with the enormous danger and damage done to our national security and intelligence assets by Hillary's traitorous actions in not guarding exceptionally sensitive classified information.

The asinine argument of the classifications being changed or done after the fact is bovine excrement. As a low level government employee, let alone Secretary of State, a person can tell if the information at hand is highly important to the security of our nation, whether it has it labeled as classified on its cover or is removed by Hillary in order to be faxed on a non-secured line. She should be in prison for the rest of her life! Instead, the Democrats will end up nominating her for president. THAT is constitutionally hypocritical and traitorous, my friend.

T.Paine, does it not bother you that DOZENS of REPUIBLICAM led comittees cannot seem to fine ONE ILLEGAL THING Hillary has done?

And whily uo mentin Biden being "unconstitutional" for SAYING somehing that was never acted upon, you failed to mentin McConnell, Ryan, Grassley and the rest of the treanonous GOP for ACTUALLY DEFYING THE CONSTITUTION BY REFUSING TO EVEN CONSIDER A NOMINNEE BEFORE THEY ARE EVEN NAMED.

The BULLSHIT that ANY president does not or should not have the authority to name a nominee in an election year is not just wrong it's INSANE!

The ONLY rteason they are doing this is that they would have to explain WHY they rejected the nominee, and they can't come out and say it's "because we hate the nigger in the White House".

Next we have a classic case of PLAYING THE RACE CARD, by Mozart a.k.a. Anonymous 3:24 PM

"because we hate the nigger in the White House" Projection much? I think so.

Then, since we are on the subject of outrageous behavior, we have the example of JR Senator Obama. He now a lame duck President, filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006. His spokesperson claims Obama now "regrets" his actions. Maybe "regrets" is what the GOP Senator can say in a few months? "The BULLSHIT that ANY president does not or should not have the authority to name a nominee in an election year is not just wrong it's INSANE!" Tell that to Joe Biden.

And finally we have an article, for those who dare read it, about the Democrat Double Standard 1.1. (DDS1.1)

Several legal scholars and Supreme Court beat reporters contend the president has a duty to appoint a replacement for Scalia, adding that the U.S. Senate is abdicating its constitutional responsibility if it does not hold hearings to approve or reject such nominees.

"It would be highly unusual for any president NOT to appoint someone," Linda Greenhouse, a former New York Times Supreme Court reporter from 1978 to 2008 and a 1998 Pulitzer Prize winner, said via email. "It's up to the Republicans to explain why they would refuse even to consider a qualified nominee."

Those evil nasty Republicans stealing all those wonderful loving Democrat seats over the past 11 plus years, for that to have happened they must have cheated and and gerrymandered and restricted voting machines and suppressed voters and oh my gosh, how could this happen in America, used, gasp, propaganda! LOL!!! What a dim wit. Get a grip, your views don't win elections when it become clear that all the free stuff you promise costs.This is from the guy who demands I answer his stupid meaningless question.

Next he'll claim it's the fault of black helicopters.Aren't used to not getting your way are you Mozart Tough, get over it and drink more heavily iwould be my advice . Subject at hand? Do you even have a clue what that is?

Here's something you can get pissed off about

You can get all the free cheese you want, in mouse traps. Eat up Mozart the Mouse

Mr. Mozart, Hillary has obfuscated, delayed, and lied in her testimony to congress on multiple occasions. I am not sure which mainstream progressive media source you get your news from but I am certain that whatever it is, they have endorsed Hillary for president, sir. Further, the APOLITICAL FBI has made the statements of finding Hillary in violation of securing compartmentalized and top secret classified information. With all due respect, you lose all credibility in your rants against un-constitutional and corrupt Republicans when you condone her actions, sir.

Next, if you did not notice in my previous post, I agreed with you and Dubya that the GOP-led Senate has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent to any nominee that President Obama brings forth. If the nominee is acceptable, that person should be confirmed.

That said, don't you think for a single minute that if Harry Reid were still in charge and Bush were still president in this situation that he would absolutely be doing the same thing. After all, that son of bitch wouldn't even pass a budget for years, but chose to run the government on continuing resolutions out of pure spiteful partisanship. I'll call the GOP out on their lawless and political crap. How about you start doing the same with the Democrats, sir?

Further, I agree with Chuck. Quit with your damned race card. I, and every true conservative I know, do not hate Obama because he is black. I hate his policies and his unconstitutional governance of our nation. History will indeed show him to be one of the worst presidents we have had in fifty years down the road.

And for every time the GOP has gerrymandered, so has the Democrats. You have to be in control of those legislatures in order to do that, you know? Further, the left has been guilty of registering myriads of people not qualified to vote. Look at ACORN for examples of this. One wonders how many elections were influenced by their corruption. Evidently you think that corruption only occurs on the right though.

I swear, if Chuck were ever to get tired and stop commenting on Tom's blog, you all would be bored to tears because you would have no one to bitch at and call names.

TP,Do you have proof Hillary lied under oath to Congress? The Republicans in Congress have not been able to prove she did, but of course you know better. Laughable.Of course no response to the lies you printed before, that many have proved wrong. Like most idiot Republicans you just spew the talking points, even if they have been proven wrong, which makes you an idiot and a liar. Thanks for proving it!

Are the evil Koch brothers to blame Boston Marathon bombing?Is GWB to blame for the 1st World Trade bombing?

I ask cause you blame both these for every thing that's happened.

BTW if you have sobered up enough to read and not see double, you will note that I have never said the Senate may not hold a hearing. What I've said is they Don't have to confirm There is no time limit to when they must confirmAnd I've given you examples of Democrat obstruction of past GOP nominees. You have ignored those comments

How's the hangover?

I can't pass on this, but some people are damned brave when they can hid behind Anonymous and they post saying Mr. Paine an idiot and a liar.Only a coward hides behind anonymous.

I swear, if Chuck were ever to get tired and stop commenting on Tom's blog, you all would be bored to tears because you would have no one to bitch at and call names.

LOL!

Just as if Chuck were ever to get tired and stop commenting on Tom's blog, HE would be bored to tears because he would have no one to bitch at and call names.

Amirite?

TP,

“Simply stating that they will block the nominee, regardless of Biden's or anyone else's unconstitutional reasoning simply is not in line with the constitution.”

Thank you, good sir. This insight is why can I admire you for not being a lockstep GOP shill. As with your view of Citizens United, you show objective reasoning.

Let me help. “Not in line with the constitution” means un-constitutional. And it’s not just the GOP. I think Obama is violating the Constitution with targeted assassinations of Americans without trial, among other issues.

You see, liberals can respect the Constitution too.

When only beliefs support your position, I question it. It’s my nature to question authority as well as authoritarians. I cannot accept beliefs and assertions unsupported by evidence.

Like this:

The asinine argument of the classifications being changed or done after the fact is bovine excrement.

Sorry, your false assertion was the bovine excrement. Mine was fact. You have no evidence to support your accusation.

You have a habit of accusation by suspicion and belief alone. I agree Hillary was wrongheaded and negligent with emails. “Criminal” requires proof though. I will join you to demand justice when the evidence is shown and conviction is by law, not by Right wing belief and accusation.

Republican witch hunts have failed. The FBI is investigating. The FBI isn’t an arm of the Democratic Party. Republicans work there too. I say let them do their work.

It is constitutionally hypocritical and traitorous to arrest without evidence and convict without proof.

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury… nor be deprived of life,liberty, or property, without due process of law”

Sorry. If you think this doesn’t apply to Hillary, you join the GOP in contempt of our Constitution. I would even allow Bush and Cheney their Constitutional rights to a fair trial for their treason and war crimes.

Further, the left has been guilty of registering myriads of people not qualified to vote. Look at ACORN for examples of this.

The facts:

Several ACORN canvassers were found guilty of faking registration forms. Evidence showed they faked forms to get paid for work they didn’t do, not to stuff ballot boxes. ACORN was defrauded by these workers. ACORN even reported them to law enforcement. Then they were smeared by criminal far Right video scammers in costumes, and defunded without conviction by Republicans and spineless Democrats.

Now ACORN is just another Pavlovian dog whistle to rile anger with right wingers and hate in racists.

George H.W.Bush (If bin laden is to be believed) was responsible for BOTH WTC bombings because he left troops in the Muslim holy land.

Imagine OUR reaction if ISIS occupied the vatican! Or Bethelem! Or in YOUR Case, Lynchburg Virginia.

I blame the Kochs for BUYING OUR ELECTIONS (With Scalias help)so they can turn the USA into the new "John Birch society"

And can you imagine Clinton or Obama ignoring national security memoes, allowing 9-11, SITTING FOR 7 MINUTES DOING NOTHING AFTER HEARING IT WAS UNDER WAY, attacking TWO countries that had nothing to do with it (after lying to congress for authorization) and allowing more than TWO BILLION DOLLARS IN CASH TO DISAPPEAR WITHOUT A TRACE IN IRAQ, creating ISIS and crashing the economy? ( I wont even go into "losing" a couple million e-mails and botching the Katrina response

WHY SHOULD WE LET THESE PEOPLE OFF THE HOOK?

I notice you never mention TREASON from Tom Cotton and his 46 buddies, and NOW TREASON from McConnel.

You are even too much of a GUTLESS COWARD to answer a simple question.

Just as I thought, The Mouse blames everything on the GOP and conservatives. What a tool of the DNC.As for your question, you need to beg me Mouse, beg me like you begged to included in the games on your grade school play ground.

Beg me Mozart, beg me

Swearing, name calling and threats will get you no where, you gotta beg me Mozart.

Wow judging from the commentary here I have come to believe that conservatives think the ONLY purpose of government is to protect the 1% from the 99%. So the only valid expenditure of resources (tax revenue ) is therefore on the military and law enforcement. Whatever happened to the purpose of government being to protect the Health, Safety and Welfare of WE THE PEOPLE ?? To do so would require using resources to keep people housed, fed, employed, healthy and prosperous. Conservatives would never waste tax revenue on those goals. Hey if you are down and out after being ripped off and shitted on by the Holy 1% that's your tough luck sucker !! Don't expect YOUR government to help you !! It's a government of the 1% by the 1% for the 1% it doesn't represent the " little people ", who told you differently ? What ?? Oh you learned about our government in school when you were being " socialized " ? Well that was all bullshit to brainwash you. It was never your government. Sad part is they are correct. If it was OUR government more resources would go to benefit the 99% and not the 1%. Better to spend money to militarize the local police and make people afraid to exercise their right to assemble and protest than to spend it to actually keep people fed, sheltered, employed and healthy !! See that's what a government that protects the 99% would do. We don't have such a government here in Amerika. It will take a lot more than Bernie Sanders to change that I'm afraid. Since Hillary already likely has the nomination bought and paid for there is a good chance of a Trump presidency...Hillary is less likable than Trump if that is possible !! Message to the conservatives in the 99% : Wake up !! You are as much pawns in their game as non 1% liberals. You have zero chance of joining their ranks in a society with little if any hope for upward mobility. What ? Yeah keep buying lottery tickets, great idea !!

Cluckie seems to have contracted "Trump syndrome" "Beg me to answer the simplest questions. I won't do it but I need to be worshiped because I am such a feckless coward"

Well, now that we've confirmed that the GOP has done NOTHING for the poor and middle class the last 40 years (and actually worked hard to do them harm), and Cluckie has admitted that he's too embarrassed to admit that, we can move on to more current things.

Like the GOP shitting on the constitution (again), claiming, that in THEIR bizzaaro world(get this) PRESIDENT OBAMA does not have the authority to nominate a Supreme Court justice in an election year!! They say that we need to "let the PEOPLE have a voice" by waiting until after the Nov election.

They forget that the people HAD a voice, and we RE ELECTED OBAMA IN 2012 BY OVER 5 MILLION VOTES A landslide in today's political climate. (Now watch as Clucky claims the mid term results were the People rejecting Obama, but we'll get to that when he actually uses the stupid excuse)

So, the American people (including MANY conservatives),having told them in no uncertain terms to do their jobs, are now seeing them cower back in their slimy holes. They NOW say they will not even SPEAK with any nominee.

Maybe they (and Clucky) should review article II, section II of the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which states (among other things) "The President SHALL appoint Supreme court justices" (Meaning, not that he "can " or "may" but MUST do so) and the Senate MUST vote to confirm or deny. Yes Clucky, they can DENY the nominee, but they MUST at least vote on them, like the Dems did back whan you claim they didn't.

But they refuse to do so because if Obama nominates someone obviously qualified, say for example, someone they already UNANIMOUSLY confirmed to a lower court, they would have to EXPLAIN to the American people WHY they rejected them. And they cannot say "We just don't like the nigger in the White House" which is the ENTIRE reason they vowed on day one to obstruct ANYTHING and EVERYTHING he tries to do

(No Cluckie, use of that word in this context does not make ME a racist)

Now here's the rub, and it's BEAUTIFUL.

If Obama appoints someone during the RECESS, there is nothing congress can legally do about it. If they challenge, and it goes to (wait for it) THE SUPREME COURT Obama more than likely wins, because the main voice against him IS THE ONE THAT DIED!!!

FOUR Liberals, and four conservatives, except two of the conservatives are moderates (meaning they are not batshit nuts and sold out to the Kochs)and Clarence Thomas has shown that he can't vote without Scalias permission.

So it's more than a good bet that Obama WINS.

OK. lets look at the other scanario. Congress manages to defy the constitution and we get no justice (pun intended)until after the election.

There is NO ONE on the GOP side that can win a natinal election without cheating on a normal day, but NOW even conservatives are tired of GOP childishness. Sanders or Clinton are all but CERTAIN to win the White House, that much is easy, but CONGRESS may swing DEMOCRAT with over 400 seats up for grabs, and the new Dem Presidnt can nominate (wait for it) BARACK OBAMA to the bench!! (Best case but any Liberal will do)

Justice AND Karma. NO more citizens United, and a return of the entire voting rights act.

Cluckie proves why Trump is winning the "uneducated" vote. Too embarrassed and SCARED to admit that the GOP has done NOTHING for the poor and middle class he resports to gibberish, or should I say "jiggery pokery".

He would not talk about Tom Cotton and his treasonous 47.

He would not talk about red states banning terms like "Global Warming" in violation of the 1st amendment.

He would not talk about red states forcing welfare recipients to submit to drug testing WITHOUT CAUSE in violation of the 4th amendment (and at great cost with no positive results)

NOW he won't talk about his heroes in congress viloating article II section II of the constitution by refusing to eve meet awith any nomineee for the federal bench,, until after the election, because THEY believe a Black man only gets three year terms as POTUS.

But he can get his gallstones in a rockslide over "spelling and yelling".

Dow Chemical Co. said it agreed to pay $835 million to settle an antitrust case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death reduced its chances of overturning a jury award.

Dow, the largest U.S. chemical maker by sales, said Friday the accord will resolve its challenges to a $1.06 billion award to purchasers of compounds for urethanes, chemicals used to make foam upholstery for furniture and plastic walls in refrigerators.

The Midland, Michigan-based company disputed a jury’s finding it had conspired with four other chemical makers to fix urethane prices and asked the Supreme Court to take the class-action case on appeal. Scalia, one of the court’s most conservative members, had voted to scale back the reach of such group suits.

“Growing political uncertainties due to recent events with the Supreme Court and increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class-action suits have changed Dow’s risk assessment of the situation,” the company said in an e-mailed statement.

At 4:26 PM,
Mozart, who likes Fidel and reads 6 papers every day said...

I don't lie. It wasn't all GWB's fault. Here are the facts!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_ActThe Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..."[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

The bill was sponsored by Representative Benjamin A. Gilman (Republican, NY-20) and co-sponsored by Representative Christopher Cox (Republican, CA-47). The bill was introduced as H.R. 4655 on September 29, 1998. The House of Representatives passed the bill 360 - 38 on October 5, and the Senate passed it with unanimous consent two days later. President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.[3]

The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives[4] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[5] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq."

The Fox News Sunday's host, Chris Wallace didn't mince words when he joined Bill O'Reilly, Friday night. He saw what the rest of the world saw and expressed his disbelief that that WA an actual debate.

O'Reilly: Now in the debate last night there was a lot of raucous behavior, a cacophony. Did it mean anything?

Wallace: Let me just say, big picture, I thought it was an embarrassment for the Republican party. There were a lot of shots taken a lot of shots scored, but there was precious little vision and almost no discussion of the issues. What are you going to do, how are you going to improve people's lives?

And if you saw someone acting presidentially on that stage, you got better eyesight, Bill, than I do.

If the election returns in SC show anything it would be that Black voters have rejected socialism in favor of crony capitalism.

Now there's a choice America can be proud of.

Remember when the GOP was called the party of "old rich white men"?Take a close look at their current candidates, a black, two Hispanics and two white men, all of which are at least 12 years younger than the two candidates of the DNC. Time to rethink that talking point.Diversity? GOP has, DNC doesn't.Young fresh candidates? Just listen to either current candidate of the DNC and imagine 4 years of either being put to sleep by one or listening to the sound of fingernails across a blackboard with the other at the State of the Union speech.( I still believe Biden is going to come to his Party's rescue)

Is it no wonder then that the Obama Justice Dept.is working against States that are obeying our Constitution by preventing non USA citizens from voting? Explains the Obama immagration policy in three words, More Democrat Voters!

Democrats have no diversity, but African Americans are Democrat's largest minority block?

ChuckSoreLoserJustTheFacts, wonderful logic; you've been twisting yourself into some odd shapes lately. Or are you just writhing in agony? Can't wait to hear you start defending Trump when he wins the Republican nomination. I understand David Duke supports him. You're living in interesting times!

And he will. Chuckie will embrace the KKK endorsed candidate. Not that he is a racist. Of course not. In fact, like Chuckie, David Duke isn't a racist either, amirite?

Hmm. isn't "Crony capitalism" when Cheney's Halliburton got no bid contracts for Bush's war for crony profit and political capital in Iraq? Good money to be made. So what if Bush's war spawned ISIS and civil war in Iraq? Dick even plotted on a pre-invasion map which oil companies were to take over Iraqi oilfields.

All the acusations you make Duyba in an attempt to paint me with the racist paint brush are laughable and a sure indicating of what lberals have left to stop the landslide of rejection they face this coming NovemberSocialism is being rejected by the largest minority voter block you have leaving the leader of the DNC a crony capitalist carry your flag.

Is it no wonder then that playing race card is all you have left.

What is even more ingesting is how my comment on the DNC's lack of diversity in it's presidential primary canadate is misunderstood to mean something entirely unrelated

Do you know the names of the corporations that should have gotten bids along with Halliburton? Didn't think so, cause there were no other corporations that could fulfill the bid requirements except Halliburton . Do you think for one minute(which in your case may just be the limit of your thinking ablity) that other competitors would have been mute if they felt they could do what the bid required. Where are those corporations and where are their complaints?

"What is even more ingesting is how my comment on the DNC's lack of diversity in it's presidential primary canadate is misunderstood to mean something entirely unrelated"

Very ingesting indeed, Chuck! Very ingesting indeed. Well played!

Oh, so you meant we're lacking diversity in our presidential candidates. Gee, we had eight years of a black president and now we've got a Jewish Democratic Socialist and a woman.

The front runner of Chuck's party is re-tweeting Mussolini quotes and admits he needs to learn more about hate groups before he disavows their endorsements. But according to the SoreLoser, WE'RE the ones lacking diversity.

Chuck, you've twisted yourself into such entertaining knots! May we call you Pretzel Man?

DuybaYour response instead of address your claim as false , as you typically do, moves on to the next talking point.

Further you have out of pure desperation reverted to A. Putting words into my mouthB. Using ad hominem

Both are clear signs of the desperate state your party, the party of the old white folks, has become.The party of " ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" has become the party of "vote for me and you'll get it free". With 49% of Americans not paying FEDERAL income tax, we are not far from the start of the nanny state and its enslaving freebies so supported by the left progressive democrat socialist Democrats underachievers that offer same only to get the votes of the masses in order to stay in power. Black voters in SC rejected a Jewish socialist in favor of a lying Crony Captialist millionaire Some choice you got there.

Funny how stupid Duyba is to think I would post using Hansons name. I bet it was Duyba himself who posted that, he's done it before.But he's and the other liberal progressive socialists democrats at so desperate he do anything to deflect thinking about the upcoming tidal wave of defeat he know is coming.Pasty old white men, LOL, has anyone here taken a look at Bernie?

""Diversity" is meaningless with lockstep ideology in service to the economic elites."

Right out of the anti-American socialist handbook, that's one quote that will haunt Duyba.

The largest block of minority voters of the DNC have rejected socialism, leaving the DNC with a crony old rich white woman Captialist to be at the top of the DNC ticket.LOL

Your woman has dropped out, your Black man can't stay awake long enough to interrupt the debat with a yawn, one of your hipanics might actually turn out to be inelligable after all, and the other one needs a gallon of water to get through a speech. That won;t go in California.

So who's your annointed front runner Cluckie? A WHITE billionaire with the endorsement of the KKK.

Whod'a thunk it?

Who's TIED for the Dem side?

A WOMAN and someone with the word "Socialist" attached. (Even though it's the same Democratic Socialism we've had in America since day one)

And where do you get the info about young Dems? Not that you will answer that one either.

Besides, all this crap about "diversity" is just a DIVERSION from the real issue, which is Cluckies GOP heroes shitting on the constitutin because they don't like the BLACK President.

Duyba, I'll give you one thing, you are the best at putting words into the mouths of others, Like you claim that I hate the Constitution

I think you are projecting

But still , I find it funny how the Democrats have no one running for their nomination under the age of 70, only rich white people, one of which is a crony Captialist liar, the other a socialist who black voters don't support. So the only road to victory for them is to attack the GOP, reverting to a plea for votes based on the concept that we aren't as bad as the other guy plus we will give you a lot of kinda far stuff.

Now there's a platform to be proud of, there's progress in the mind of a Iiberal, the more who rely on govt, the better America is.

A New York appeals court held last week that Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s school-age children don’t want to live with him anymore, and should live exclusively with their mother, O’Reilly’s ex-wife Maureen McPhilmy.

According to the opinion, the court’s four justices unanimously ruled in McPhilmy’s favor based upon “the clearly stated preferences of the children”:

Viewing the totality of the circumstances, there is a sound and substantial basis for the Supreme Court’s determination that it is in the best interests of the children for the mother to be awarded primary residential custody. Particularly relevant in this case are the clearly stated preferences of the children, especially considering their age and maturity, and the quality of the home environment provided by the mother[.]

The preference of McPhilmy and O’Reilly’s 17-year-old daughter is not particularly difficult to guess: As we noted last year, she told a court-appointed forensic examiner that she witnessed O’Reilly drag her mother down a staircase by the neck. (According to court transcripts obtained by Gawker, she also viewed O’Reilly as a temperamental, absentee parent who was uninterested in developing a relationship with her.) At a January 22 hearing, the children’s court-appointed lawyer, Barbara Kopman, told the appellate court that both the daughter and son strongly preferred living with their mother over their father.

These words are directly from Cluckie the Republican Clown: "when you present facts I will dispute them "

Now he's accusing me of putting words in his mouth? IOKIYAR

Chuckie and his entire GOP are anti Constitutional taxes, anti Constitutional regulation of commerce and anti Constitutional providing for the generals welfare.

Notice Chuckie did NOT disagree with this statement. He just whined.

The other fact he cannot dispute, and will distract from, is each and every GOP candidate is dedicated to the same failed ideology of more tax cuts and de-regulation for pasty rich old white men.

He ran from the points. Fled like a chicken, when he could have disagreed and educated us on all the Republicans that are for Constitutional taxes, Constitutional regulation of commerce and Constitutional providing for the generals welfare.

Oh, but he couldn't, because I was right.

"when you present facts I will dispute them "

Lame.

I even provided some of "his facts" that are lies.

Obama the Marxist, the global conspiracy of evil climate scientist, death panels, liberals are commies...and on and on.

I hope he can clarity something that's really bothering me. If the establishment Democrats reject a democratic socialist in favor of a crony capitalist, how can the Democrat Party be the Socialist Party? This contradicts everything Chuck has taught us about the Democrat Party.

Confused Conservative, don't look for logic in ChuckSoreLoserJustTheFactsMorre's comments. He twists himself in odd shapes to make his "points" and repeats stuff he finds online that is demonstrably untrue.

Remember Rush Limbaugh's "operation chaos" from 2008? That's what "Chuck" is doing here. He's what they call a Ratfucker. His goal was to disrupt this blog and drive all the readers and commenters away.